KUMBHAT HOLOGRAPHICS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two of the six writ petitioners, who had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to complain of the unfair tender terms presented by the State, assail the common order dated February 10, 2021 dismissing the writ petitions.

(2.) At the outset, it must be observed that matters of the present kind must be treated with great circumspection, since the real fight is between the private parties to obtain a lucrative contract and the status of the employer is used as an excuse to approach the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the Court may not have the expertise to go into complex matters such as technical specifications. Equally, notwithstanding the employer being a State or other authority answering to the description under Article 12 of the Constitution, there is an element of latitude which has to be allowed for an employer to choose the product that would be best suited to it. The benefit of the doubt has always to be given to the employer in most cases and there is a presumption that the process adopted is fair and reasonable. However, such presumption is rebuttable.

(3.) It needs also to be acknowledged that, more often than not, the commercial entities approaching the Court seek to write down the very rules of the game that they aspire to participate in. But what is of paramount importance is the nature of the work that is required to be undertaken by the employer and how the employer may be best served. All the dramatis personae herein are armed with authoritative judicial pronouncements on the principles that they perceive are applicable, quite often endeavouring to twist a principle out of context and make it fit a situation not suited to it. Concepts that would apply to contracts and dicta that would hold good for tender matters are sought to be used interchangeably in a free-for-all where only the ends justify the means.